Report that the White House can offer Almost a 50% reduction in the NASA scientific mission management is both breathtaking and, if it is true, nothing less than disastrous. To make these cuts – a total of $ 3.6 billion – NASA should close the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland and cancel the mission that will bring back samples from March, a mission to Venus and the Roman space telescope of Nancy Grace, which is Almost ready to be launched.
Each space telescope in addition to the Hubble and the James Webb would be closed. According to the American Astronomical Society, some cuts include projects that help us understand the effects of the sun on global communications, a potential threat of national security.
Casey Dreier, defender of the Planetary Society policies, based in Pasadena, said: “This is an event in terms of extinction for the communities of the earth and space, the decades of work and the tens of billions of investment of taxpayers.”
In addition, NASA as a whole would see a reduction of 20% – just as we go ahead with the Artemis program. Artemis is the step -by -step campaign of NASA “Moon to Mars”. Artemis II should be launched next year and will send four astronauts to a lunar flight, the first time that humans have been near another celestial body for over 50 years. Although it seems likely that Arthis will continue in one way or another, an overall budget of 20% will not leave any part of NASA not affected.
The president promised a “golden age of America”; His candidate at the head of NASA promised A “golden age of science and discovery”. It would be a return to the dark ages.
Taking a lamp in space science would also have little effect on the federal budget while collecting American leadership in space – and the inspiration it provides through political divisions – by generations.
The astronomical company warns that our discounts will outsource talents “to other countries that increase their investments in the facilities and the development of the workforce”. And, as Dreier points out, the spacecrafts would be “left to tumbleless in space in space” and waste billions which have already been spent. “Thousands of brilliant students across the country,” he wrote recently, “would be refused careers in science and engineering in the absence of scholarships and research funds to support them.”
Here is the context of dollars and hundred. Nasa Budget since the 1970s “hovering” Between 1% and 0.4% of federal discretionary expenses, according to the analysis of the planetary company, however for each dollar spent, NASA generates $ 3 in the national economy. The restart of NASA was worth nearly $ 76 billion Economic impact in 2023supporting more than 300,000 jobs. In California aloneNASA and its partners associated in industry and the academic world offer more than 66,000 jobs, more than $ 18 billion in economic activity and $ 1 billion in state tax revenue. The blow for the Bang de la Nasa is astronomical, pun.
Cutting waste is one thing. Evisceration is another. With regard to science – from public health to climate change – the current administration makes it, not the first.
Meanwhile, China continues its spatial ambitions, with plans for a human lunar campaign and its own mission of “return of samples” on the red planet. For the moment, fortunately, bipartite support for NASA seems to be holding. The Democrats and the Republicans of Congress, led by the Caucus of Planetary Sciences, denounced this attack on NASA. And planetary society has hired thousands of activists passionate to fight this battle.
Humans aspire to the connection with the universe – so we look at the launches on social networks, we follow the Rovers pieces on Mars and we are married in the creation in the images transmitted from the James Webb space telescope. We borrow telescopes from the public library and look at the heavens.
Bending metal – The real manufacturing process of rovers and spacecrafts and telescopes – leads to economic activity. Fascinating results – SPACE Science missions data – draws imagination.
We choose to go to space – send humans and probes – and we are looking for knowledge because curiosity is our evolutionary heritage. We explore other worlds to know them and, in doing so, we discover more about ourselves.
If you agree, let it know at Congress. This is perhaps the only fixed against Dumbly going where no budget has been passed before.
Christopher Cokinos is a writer of nature and sciences whose most recent book is “always as brilliant: an enlightening story of the Moon of Antiquity to tomorrow”.
Knowledge
Times Insights Provides an analysis generated by AI-AI on the content of the voices to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any press article.
Point of view
Prospects
The content generated by AI-AI is powered by perplexity. The editorial staff of Los Angeles Times do not create or modify the content.
Ideas expressed in the play
- The author argues that the 50% reduction proposed to the Directorate of the NASA scientific mission would end critical projects like the Mission of return from March Sample Return, the Da Vinci mission to Venus and the Roman space telescope of Nancy Grace Roman, while closing most space telescopes in addition to Hubble and James Webb. These reductions are likely to undermine American leadership in space science and could outsource talents to countries increasing their investments in space exploration(4).
- The economic impacts are underlined, the NASA budget generating $ 3 in economic activity for each $ 1 spent, supporting more than 300,000 jobs nationally and contributing to $ 18 billion a year to the California economy(4). The author warns that the reduction of scientific financing wastes tens of billions of previous investments of taxpayers and leaves a spaceship “Tumbling aimless”, wasting operational missions(3).
- Resistance to bipartite congress is noted, legislators and defense groups as the planetary company are mobilizing against the Cup(1)(2).
Different views on the subject
- The Trump administration’s budget project supervises cuts as a reallocation of resources to priorities such as the Artemis program, aimed at rationalizing the concentration of NASA on human space flight while reducing the overall agency expenses by 20%(1)(4). Supporters argue that this reflects a change towards “effective budgeting” and the priority of crew missions on robotic science(1)(2).
- Supporters of the Cups suggest that the end of current scientific projects could release funds for future initiatives, with anonymous officials citing the need for “right size” of the NASA portfolio and to avoid redundancies perceived in land research and research in land and space for research in space sciences(2)(4).
- Some defenders claim that the reductions correspond to the wider objectives of budgetary austerity, stressing that the NASA scientific budget has developed considerably in recent decades and requires “difficult choices” to balance national priorities(1)(4).
